Si Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 And how could this all effect Ashley? Doubt it could. I don't think it can as he's got people in the company who run it and will be accountable. Could be bad for Sports Direct though, might be something and nothing but could be brand damaging for them. That's the idea btw. Don't going to SJP or not buying anything at the club shops will never happen and won't get Ashley to do anything. A group of people, all dressed in black & white shirts burning down some of shops might get him to sell the club. You're suggesting we form sort of Toon-qaeda? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David28 Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 And how could this all effect Ashley? Doubt it could. I don't think it can as he's got people in the company who run it and will be accountable. Could be bad for Sports Direct though, might be something and nothing but could be brand damaging for them. That's the idea btw. Don't going to SJP or not buying anything at the club shops will never happen and won't get Ashley to do anything. A group of people, all dressed in black & white shirts burning down some of shops might get him to sell the club. You're suggesting we form sort of Toon-qaeda? 1st point solved. We have a name already. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pixelphish Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 Toon Militia Army You're welcome. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Crooks Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 Big Al-Queda Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loki679 Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 Free Toon (of) Mike. The neighbours can join in too Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 The "unusual circumstances" are that the baby was found dumped in the ladies toilets. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimpy474 Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 The "unusual circumstances" are that the baby was found dumped in the ladies toilets. Didn't know they sold them too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 The "unusual circumstances" are that the baby was found dumped in the ladies toilets. Surely unusual would have been the gents. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 Bet the fucker still tries to charge her for delivery, same day as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 Mother arrested. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 Mother arrested. Wat http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-25603466 Sports Direct baby birth: Police investigate 'unusual circumstances Police are investigating the "unusual circumstances" of the birth of a baby at a sports retail warehouse. The boy is seriously ill after being born at the Sports Direct distribution centre in Shirebrook, Derbyshire, late on 1 January. Both the mother and her baby were taken to hospital for treatment. A spokesperson for Sports Direct declined to comment because of the police investigation and would not confirm if the mother was an employee. 'Serious but stable' A spokesperson for Derbyshire Police said: "The baby was taken to a neonatal unit where he remains. "The baby is in a serious but stable condition. The mother, a woman in her 20s, was also taken to hospital for treatment. "Officers are still investigating the circumstances surrounding the birth." Police were called by the ambulance service at around 23:15 GMT on 1 January to report the birth of the baby. A spokesperson said he was born in "unusual circumstances" but would not give more details. Sports Direct has about 400 stores across the UK and describes itself as "the UK's leading sports retailer by revenue and operating profit". It was founded by Mike Ashley, the billionaire owner of Newcastle United. Mother of the baby born at Sports Direct has been arrested on suspicion of wilful neglect . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 Bet the f***er still tries to charge her for delivery, same day as well. Free mug though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 So how does all this mean SD and Ashley are in the shit then, James? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 "Do you need some towels for the baby?" "Yes please, there's blood everywhere." "That'll be £6.99. And I'll get you a mop too..." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 SD could be in big trouble with the HSE, they'll be all over this like a rash. If the mother was an employee then they should have carried out a Risk Assessment on the mother and have a legal obligation to protect the pregnant mother and child. A court case is almost certain to come out of this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Colossus Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 "Do you need some towels for the baby?" "Yes please, there's blood everywhere." "That'll be £6.99. And I'll get you a mop too..." "Do you want a bag for life for a pound?" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 SD could be in big trouble with the HSE, they'll be all over this like a rash. If the mother was an employee then they should have carried out a Risk Assessment on the mother and have a legal obligation to protect the pregnant mother and child. A court case is almost certain to come out of this. There is no indication yet that the mother was an employee. even if she was she may have been there for non immediate work reasons, I.E. sorting out maternity leave or even visiting people at work. The warehouse also has a large store there as well, in which case it's just one of those things if a customer gives birth there. There is no information to suggest that anyone else knew of the women being in labour at the time.It is quite possible that she went to a toilet and gave birth on her own. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 SD could be in big trouble with the HSE, they'll be all over this like a rash. If the mother was an employee then they should have carried out a Risk Assessment on the mother and have a legal obligation to protect the pregnant mother and child. A court case is almost certain to come out of this. There is no indication yet that the mother was an employee. even if she was she may have been there for non immediate work reasons, I.E. sorting out maternity leave or even visiting people at work. The warehouse also has a large store there as well, in which case it's just one of those things if a customer gives birth there. There is no information to suggest that anyone else knew of the women being in labour at the time.It is quite possible that she went to a toilet and gave birth on her own. You think she may have been sorting out Maternity Leave on a bank holiday? The BBC article says "late on 1 January," would a shop be open late on a bank holiday? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 SD could be in big trouble with the HSE, they'll be all over this like a rash. If the mother was an employee then they should have carried out a Risk Assessment on the mother and have a legal obligation to protect the pregnant mother and child. A court case is almost certain to come out of this. There is no indication yet that the mother was an employee. even if she was she may have been there for non immediate work reasons, I.E. sorting out maternity leave or even visiting people at work. The warehouse also has a large store there as well, in which case it's just one of those things if a customer gives birth there. There is no information to suggest that anyone else knew of the women being in labour at the time.It is quite possible that she went to a toilet and gave birth on her own. You think she may have been sorting out Maternity Leave on a bank holiday? The BBC article says "late on 1 January," would a shop be open late on a bank holiday? Ok so she was at work. As far as I'm aware of there is no law required for a women to take maternity until after the child is born. So long as the women wasn't putting herself and her child in a dangerous position then SD would not be breaking any rules. The women could have been working as a supervisor or in another position where she isn't doing things like lifting etc. From then on it's pretty much the mothers responsibility for the welfare of her child. SD can't be held responsible if she has taken upon herself to abandon/neglect her child. As the mother is so far the only person arrested in this it would seem to indicate that she is the one who has done wrong and none else is involved. Some people in here are fast to put the boot in on SD and Ashley. Yes I don't like many things that SD, like 0 hour contracts etc, however there are people in here implying SD are the ones in the wrong and so far there is no evidence to suggest this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Ok so she was at work. As far as I'm aware of there is no law required for a women to take maternity until after the child is born. So long as the women wasn't putting herself and her child in a dangerous position then SD would not be breaking any rules. The women could have been working as a supervisor or in another position where she isn't doing things like lifting etc. From then on it's pretty much the mothers responsibility for the welfare of her child. SD can't be held responsible if she has taken upon herself to abandon/neglect her child. As the mother is so far the only person arrested in this it would seem to indicate that she is the one who has done wrong and none else is involved. Some people in here are fast to put the boot in on SD and Ashley. Yes I don't like many things that SD, like 0 hour contracts etc, however there are people in here implying SD are the ones in the wrong and so far there is no evidence to suggest this. You're clueless man, I've pointed out in a post that the company does have a responsibility, I'm not guessing that they have, I know they have because it's part of my job to know. The mother has been arrested, that will not be the end of it as the HSE either will be involved or will now get involved. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 guys stahp Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Ok so she was at work. As far as I'm aware of there is no law required for a women to take maternity until after the child is born. So long as the women wasn't putting herself and her child in a dangerous position then SD would not be breaking any rules. The women could have been working as a supervisor or in another position where she isn't doing things like lifting etc. From then on it's pretty much the mothers responsibility for the welfare of her child. SD can't be held responsible if she has taken upon herself to abandon/neglect her child. As the mother is so far the only person arrested in this it would seem to indicate that she is the one who has done wrong and none else is involved. Some people in here are fast to put the boot in on SD and Ashley. Yes I don't like many things that SD, like 0 hour contracts etc, however there are people in here implying SD are the ones in the wrong and so far there is no evidence to suggest this. You're clueless man, I've pointed out in a post that the company does have a responsibility, I'm not guessing that they have, I know they have because it's part of my job to know. The mother has been arrested, that will not be the end of it as the HSE either will be involved or will now get involved. Ok then, is there a situation here where SD could be employing her under the correct conditions? That is my point, my point is not debating if HSE are going to carry out an investigation or not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 I'm inclined to believe Stifler, he tends to know what he's talking about. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveMc Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 HSE tend to be pretty toothless mind Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Any stick ............................... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts